In years past, as corporate networks began to expand, there became a growing need for so-called KVM switches to allow a single network operator to access and control multiple different computers with a single keyboard, video, and mouse workstation. At first, KVM switches provided the maintenance operator with the ability to access between two and eight different computers using a single keyboard, video and mouse. But, corporate networks grew in size, such that the size and complexity of KVM switches increased. Eventually, computer network operators demanded KVM access between a workstation and thousands, and even tens of thousands, of different computers. The initial response was to scale KVM switches such that a KVM switch that provided one workstation with access to 8 servers could instead be scaled to 8 additional KVM switches, thus providing access to 8×8=64 computers. In this way, larger numbers of computers could be accessed via a single keyboard, video and mouse workstation.
Scaling remains a viable alternative in many computer environments today. However, as the introduction of extremely vast numbers of computers, such as in server farms and the like, become commonplace, the need for a network operator to access many tens of thousands, or conceivably even many more computers becomes acute. Of course, KVM switches can be scaled in increasing numbers in order to accommodate the growing numbers of computers that must be attached to a few workstations, but the increased number of scaled KVM switches becomes a space consideration in large server farm areas.
Examples of the traditional KVM switches are shown in FIGS. 1 and 2. In FIG. 1, a traditional corporate network 10, such as a LAN, WAN, Internet, etc., provides a communication path for a number of servers 11-13. The operation of the servers and the communication protocols used by the network on the corporate network 10 are well known to the artisan. For purposes of brevity, they will not be repeated here. The artisan will recognize, however, that many different protocols can be employed for the servers 11-13 to communicate on the network 10 and that many protocols will be developed in the future to increase the efficiency of data travel on the network by the servers 11-13. The present invention is not limited to any particular one.
In the KVM switch environment, as shown in FIG. 2, a number of workstations 17-19 communicate through a KVM switch 16 to servers A and B of the server set 14. The servers 14 communicate with each other and with other servers, appliances, etc., over the corporate network 10. FIG. 2 illustrates the scalability of the KVM switches in that the KVM switch 16 includes one output port connected to a second KVM switch 15. The second KVM switch 15 then connects to four additional servers C-F of the servers 14. Thus, if the KVM switch 16 provided only four output port capability, the additional KVM switch 15 allows the users 17-19 to communicate with more than four servers (in this case of FIG. 2, six servers 14).
The KVM switches 15 and 16 are known devices and are commercially available. Examples of these KVM switches are commercially marketed by Cybex of Huntsville, Ala. as the Autoview family of products and the XP family of products. The KVM switches 15 and 16 provide a number of functions in the embodiment of FIG. 2. First, when the servers 14 boot up, the KVM switches emulate keyboard, video and mouse initiation commands such that each of the computers 14 believes that it is actually connected to a single keyboard, video, and mouse workstation. The KVM switches are programmed to emulate keyboard, video and mouse limitation commands in accordance with one of any number of different KVM standards, such as Sun, PS2, etc. for keyboard/mouse and VGA, SVGA, etc. for video. In addition, the KVM switches 15 and 16 poll the workstation system requirements (such as the type of mouse, type of monitor, and type of keyboard) and provide data conversions that are necessary for otherwise inconsistent keyboard, video, and mouse devices to communicate with the servers 14.
One of the earliest types of KVM switches known is described in U.S. Pat. No. 5,732,212, Perholtz et al. System and Method For Remote Monitoring and Operation of Personal Computers. Perholtz describes remote KVM switching via the telephone network and local switching via a daisy-chain network of computers. Perholtz describes the use of a host system communicating via the telephone network with a workstation to gain motherboard access to a selected computer. In other words, Perholtz discloses that the remote user can reboot, cold boot, and perform other functions that might otherwise require local motherboard access, when the remote user employs the host unit to gain the motherboard access.
The present invention provides a significant improvement over traditional KVM switches and remote access KVM switches by providing KVM access—without traditional scaled KVM switches per se and without a traditional remote access unit—to any number of servers on a network, together with motherboard access to those servers. In traditional network access systems, the workstations and servers communicating via the network exchange keyboard, video and mouse command data between one another, usually in the form of packeted information. Thus, in traditional systems like the commercially available PC Anywhere and other such remote systems, one can access a server via the telephone network, the Internet, etc., and gain keyboard, video and mouse access to the server. However, users of such traditional systems cannot gain access to the numbers of servers that may exist on, for example, a corporate LAN or Internet, while also gaining motherboard access to those servers. In other words, in the past, the user could choose traditional KVM switches that provided motherboard access but had limitations on practical scalability or could choose remote access switches which provided access to vast numbers of servers, but failed to provide direct motherboard access.
The present invention solves both of the above problems by allowing any number of workstations to gain keyboard, video and mouse access to any number of servers on a corporate network, the Internet, or other network in a relatively simplified structure. In accordance with the preferred embodiment of the present invention, a number of servers communicate over a corporate network, with the keyboard, video and mouse ports of the various servers connected via a cable to respective converter boxes. The converter boxes also communicate with a maintenance network, onto which the various user workstations also communicate. In accordance with this embodiment, when a user of one of the workstations desires to access one of the servers, the user workstation communicates via the maintenance network to a corresponding converter for the desired server to gain motherboard access to that desired server. The user can then employ the server to communicate with other servers via the corporate network.
Although reference herein is made to converter “cores” and/or “units” one can appreciate that the converter described herein need not be a “box” or a “unit,” but can be a computer card, server card, or can be otherwise incorporated into any system component.
In the preferred embodiment of the present invention, any number of users can communicate on the maintenance network and any number of servers can communicate on the corporate network such that any one of the users can communicate with any one of the servers and all of the servers can communicate one with another, without traditionally scaled KVM switches and without traditional KVM remote access devices, yet retaining full motherboard access. The preferred embodiment thus provides essentially unlimited scalability while allowing each user to gain motherboard access to any one of the associated servers.
In alternative embodiments, securities procedures are employed to limit motherboard access to certain or all of the servers by certain or all of the workstations.
In other alternative embodiments, the corporate network and the maintenance network are not independent networks, but are a common network.
In still further embodiments, the converters are not independently assigned to each server, but service one or more servers.
In still alternative embodiments, the maintenance network and the corporate network are bridged together.